2 March, 1926.]

mostly repayments for services rendered to other Government Departments.

625. Paragraph 10 relates to the point of Police protection for Chequers Estate? (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) That is a special sub-head. There was no provision made in the Vote for any expenditure at Chequers, and I think it is very questionable whether the title covers expenditure on Chequers at all; but in the next year a sum of £1,150 was provided and voted by the House, after some discussion.

626. Under the Act, was not it intended to cover everything from the Endowment Trust? (Sir Lionel Earle.) Certainly, I think as regards maintenance, but I do not think police came into the picture.

627. That would be your view of it?That would be my view; but whether it is a proper charge on my Vote or not, it is rather difficult for me to say. I can only say the Treasury decided that the cost of protecting Chequers when Minister was in residence was not a proper charge to the Metropolitan Police Fund, and that in future the police charge should fall on our Vote.

no

628. Have the Treasury any view on this? (Mr. Phillips.) We considered the question whether it fell within the ambit of the Vote, and we came to the conclusion that it did. a question of judgment perhaps; I do not want to be dogmatic about it.

It is

629. At any rate you do not think that it would lie against the income from the trust? I do not think there is any income from the trust available for that purpose.

Captain Craig.

630. With reference to the sum of £123,623, which was the expenditure on new works, etc., can you remember whether in the years before the War the annual sum expended under that heading

Chairman.

[Continued.

was very much the same one year as another, or did it vary very much? (Sir Lionel Earle.) It varied a good deal I think with the demands of the Departments.

631. I was wondering whether the demands neutralised one another so that the annual result was very much the same. I want to get how this sum for this year compares with the amount in the years immediately before the War; is it greater or less? Of course, it must be greater, because costs are up about 80 or 90 per cent.

632. On the other hand, we are supposed to be economising with regard to new works, and so on. It is greater u fact, is it?-I could let you have the figures for 1915 say, for New Works in Public Buildings.

633. I suppose I could find them out for myself, but I thought perhaps you might remember?-No.

Mr. Briggs.

634. On page 92, I see a reference to Adastral House. I had the impression that that was the Air Ministry-It is occupied by the Air Ministry, but pro vided by us.

635. Is it also occupied by the Stationery Office?—Yes, the Stationery Office have quarters there, too, in the basement.

636. Where does the cost of Adastral House in full appear in these Accounts? -Do you mean the rent?

637. Yes? It is mixed up in the various rent sub-heads in this particular Vote, but I cannot give you the individual items for Adastral House, because the rents are taken all in.

638. Can you tell me what the rent of Adastral House is?-I can let you know. It is a biggish sum. 639. Do not trouble.

640. Paragraph 11, on page vii of your Report, refers to House Building, Sir Malcolm?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) The object of that paragraph is to point out

that in this year the Office of Works have got repayments much closer up to date, and that their receipts from local authorities practically cover the whole of the expenditure which they have incurred.

Chairman.

641. Sir Malcolm, paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, on page vii of your Report, refer to the Housing Schemes which were transferred to the Office of Works?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) Yes, sir.

642. Have you anything to add on the paragraphs?-They were Housing Schemes started by the Ministry of Munitions during the war, and handed over, as residuary legatee, to Sir Lionel Earle, who has got to make the best of them. Paragraph 12 continues the story that was before the Committee last year. explaining the difficulties which the Office of Works had in trying to dispose of certain houses of a temporary character erected on land not belonging to the Government; and it was eventually found that the only legal way in which they could deal with the property was to purchase the sites. This paragraph reports the progress during the year under review.

643. The point, I think, lies in the last sentence of paragraph 12, to the effect that the liability has merely been deferred by the purchase agreements?—Yes.

644. Have you anything to say generally on these three paragraphs, Sir Lionel,

before I invite specific questions ?-(Sir Lionel Earle.) I can only say with regard to the purchase of sites for temporary Housing Schemes that these, as Sir Malcolm has stated, were not built by us in any shape or form. They were built by the Munitions and other Departments. during the war as a War Service; and ultimately, after the war was over, it was decided they should be handed over to us, really from the point of view of a Disposal Authority as far as possible, and we have had to administer these Estates to the best of our ability. A great many of these houses were erected on lands which were not purchased, they were commandeered under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the object of our purchasing the sites covered by the Housing Schemes was to enable the Government to secure as full a return as was possible for the capital outlay incurred on the erection of the temporary buildings. The Department is, as I have explained, in the position of a Disposal Authority merely, and not empowered to administer the Estates indefinitely, the only way, under the Defence of the Realm Acts, in which this could be done was by purchase with a view to resell. Agreements were arrived at, however, without recoursa

4 March, 1926.]

being had to the compulsory powers provided under the Acts. It has, of course, always been understood that the temporary buildings should be removed as 300n as practicable, having regard, incidentally, to the availability of alternative housing accommodation for the tenants; but it was necessary, of course, to prevent the properties simply reverting to the landlords on the termination of the war.

645. I should like to ask one general question, but it may be that it is for the Treasury to answer: how did it arise that these properties went to the Office of Works and not to the Disposal Board?— (Mr. Phillips.) I suppose the position was that the work which the Disposai Board had to do was already sufficient to tax all their activities, and at the same time it was thought the Office of Works was a very suitable channel for disposing of these Housing Estates.

646. In other connections the Disposal Board was dealing with the munitions property, and part of this is property that was provided for housing munition workers?—Yes; but you will remember that this property is of a nature which cannot be disposed of outright by direct sale, in the way that most of the other stuff which the Disposal Board handled could be. It was necessary to run the places for at least a short period of years, and for that purpose the Office of Works appeared to be a much more suitable Department. (Sir Lionel Earle.) That I think is really the answer; the Local Authorities would not take them over, and there was no other body forthcoming at that time, during this transition period, and there is no doubt, I think, that the State was under certain obligations towards these tenants who had been, for war purposes, transferred from Ireland, and various parts of England, to these munition centres like Barrow and other places, and they could not very well cast these people adrift.

Sir Fredric Wise.

647. What was the approximate loss on these houses?-It depends on what Estate you take. Of course, we have not by any means sold all; we still have a very large number of the semi-permanent. We have sold, I am glad to say, all the permanent estates in England except one, but we have a very large number of these semipermanent estates, consisting of huts and houses built as quickly as possible, but not up to local authority requirements of

[Continued.

course, and therefore which probably have a life of only perhaps 15 or 20 years, not longer. Take the Well Hall Estate, which was the only one for which we were responsible as regards the buildings, we had to work day and night, including Sundays. Directly that Scheme was put in force, I notified the Treasury that in my opinion 33 per cent. ought to be wiped off at once before we laid a brick, because of the conditions; and I under-estimated that: I think it ought to have been nearer 40 or 43 per cent. The net result is, that although we advertised very freely as regards Well Hall, and got the thing wellknown, and had all sorts of people biting, you will see from the accounts the total amount that has been received has not been nearly a half, but I do not think, on the whole, we have done very badly in getting out of the Estate at that. It is certainly property which, in my opinion, it is not wise or right for the Government to hold; we are not a housing authority, and the difficulty of collecting the rent is enormous. I think the tenants feel that, the Government owning these properties, there is not the same obligation to pay rent that there is to an individual landlord. Directly you have to take drastic measures in respect of recalcitrant tenants, the Member for the district immediately begins to agitate, naturally, to prevent these strong measures being put in force. The difficulties are enormous from that point of view.

648. In connection with these provincial estates, do I understand that the loss is about £800,000? On the Well Hall Estate?

649. No, Barrow, Coventry, and so on? -Yes, that is so. Of course, we had no responsibility at all in regard to the erection of those buildings.

650. Can any of the tenants buy the houses? They have done, in certain cases. We began selling houses, but it was very, very slow indeed. At Well Hall 53 houses

were sold to individual tenants.

651. Can they buy under the Workmen's Dwellings Act, or anything of that sort? -We sold wherever we could to the tenants; we preferred to sell them to the tenants. Then we finally had these en bloc offers, and Mr. Jowett, who was then my Minister, went into this very carefully, when the Labour Government was in power. There were two offers made; one was from a speculative firm, and the other from a co-operative society; the cooperative society naturally had to pay as

4 March, 1926.]

[Continued.

much as the best offer we received, and he preferred, and I think perfectly rightly, to sell to a co-operative society rather than to a speculative building firm.

652. I suppose, really, the approximate loss is about £1,250,000 to £1,500,000?Yes; but if you take the difference between the capital cost of the munitions of war and other things which the Disposal Board sold, and the amount they realised, I think you will find that these come out extremely favourably. It is really a war loss, and you have to face that, I am afraid.

654. Because the tenants would not be protected under the Rent Restriction Act? No, because the landlord naturally would say, "I want my property back.” I do not think you could help that. Take this place near Sheffield, Tinsley; the owner of that property was Lord Fitzwilliam, and he naturally said, "I cannot allow my property to go on being used by the Government for the next 15 or 20 years without it being purchased, or terms being come to," and we had to come to terms with these various landlords; and they have met us very favourably and decently, I think.

655. What did we pay for the purchase for this short period? Which particular one are you referring to?

656. Take them as a whole: those that have been purchased on short tenancies? -I can let you have a list of what has been paid for all the properties we have had to purchase; I have not the figures with me at the moment.

657. I am referring more especially to the properties that have short-period tenancies, where we have to pull them down and give the properties over again? -That is the temporary housing estates?

658. Yes? I will let you have a paper. 659. Have you any figure for any estate of a temporary housing character?-Not here with me at the moment.

660. Could you tell the Committee what it costs for the maintenance of these

houses? I cannot let you know now; I will let you have a statement of the whole cost of maintenance.

661. It would be interesting to know, first, what they cost originally; secondly, what they cost to maintain; and, thirdly, what it is anticipated it will cost to pull them down and hand them over again to the owners of the land? There is no doubt about it, the cost of maintenance will go up every year, and that is why our policy, at Barrow, for instance, where the houses are very poor and very bad, and rapidly becoming slum property (I have been to see them all) is that whenever a vacancy occurs, we do not re-let that house, we pull it down, so as to free the site as soon as possible.

662. How do you get rid of the tenants? -This has gone on automatically, either through death, or migration. If such a vacancy occurs, we do not let that house again.

663. So, whatever income you were receiving from that house would go on to the dead-weight charge of the Scheme?Yes, less the cost of maintaining it.

664. On the general question of housing have you any permanent housing schemes still in hand? We have only got two in England, a place called Queensferry, a small thing, and Chep

stow.

665. Are all the houses in occupation, on that Estate? Oh, yes; I do not think we have any voids anywhere, except, as I say, those voids where we do not re-let. 666. Are we creating a big debt on any of these estates by reason of the arrears of rent? Yes, I am sorry to say that is So. It is better than it was, but the net arrears at the end of September, 1924, were about £75,000 on all the estates; but of this amount approximately 2/5ths was on account of the Well Hall Estate, a legacy, mainly, of a rent strike, and a debt owing by the Chester-leStreet District Council, dating from the time of their administration of part of the Birtley Estate. This latter is in process of being gradually liquidated. During the course of the last year there has been a reduction (excluding the lastmentioned item) of the arrears, by about £3,000, mainly effected as a result of the unemployment relief works carried out during the winter of 1924-25, on which many of the tenants were employed.

667. When you submit your statement, would you mind saying how much was in arrear, as well as the rent? Yes, I can

4 March, 1926.]

being had to the compulsory powers provided under the Acts. It has, of course, always been understood that the temporary buildings should be removed as soon as practicable, having regard, inciientally, to the availability of alternative housing accommodation for the tenants; but it was necessary, of course, to prevent the properties simply reverting to the landlords on the termination of the war.

645. I should like to ask one general question, but it may be that it is for the Treasury to answer: how did it arise that these properties went to the Office of Works and not to the Disposal Board?(Mr. Phillips.) I suppose the position was that the work which the Disposai Board had to do was already sufficient to tax all their activities, and at the same time it was thought the Office of Works was a very suitable channel for disposing of these Housing Estates.

646. In other connections the Disposal Board was dealing with the munitions property, and part of this is property that was provided for housing munition workers?—Yes; but you will remember that this property is of a nature which cannot be disposed of outright by direct sale, in the way that most of the other stuff which the Disposal Board handled could be. It was necessary to run the places for at least a short period of years, and for that purpose the Office of Works appeared to be a much more suitable Department. (Sir Lionel Earle.) That I think is really the answer; the Local Authorities would not take them over, and there was no other body forthcoming at that time, during this transition period, and there is no doubt, I think, that the State was under certain obligations towards these tenants who had been, for war purposes, transferred from Ireland, and various parts of England, to these munition centres like Barrow and other places, and they could not very well cast these people adrift.

Sir Fredric Wise.

647. What was the approximate loss on these houses? It depends on what Estate you take. Of course, we have not by any means sold all; we still have a very large number of the semi-permanent. We have sold, I am glad to say, all the permanent estates in England except one, but we have a very large number of these semipermanent estates, consisting of huts and houses built as quickly as possible, but not up to local authority requirements of

[Continued.

course, and therefore which probably have a life of only perhaps 15 or 20 years, not longer. Take the Well Hall Estate, which was the only one for which we were responsible as regards the buildings, we had to work day and night, including Sundays. Directly that Scheme was put in force, I notified the Treasury that in my opinion 33 per cent. ought to be wiped off at once before we laid a brick, because of the conditions; and I under-estimated that: I think it ought to have been nearer 40 or 43 per cent. The net result is, that although we advertised very freely as regards Well Hall, and got the thing wellknown, and had all sorts of people biting, you will see from the accounts the total amount that has been received has not been nearly a half, but I do not think, on the whole, we have done very badly in getting out of the Estate at that. is certainly property which, in my opinion, it is not wise or right for the Government to hold; we are not a housing authority, and the difficulty of collecting the rent is enormous. I think the tenants feel that, the Government owning these properties, there is not the same obligation to pay rent that there is to an individual landlord. Directly you have to take drastic measures in respect of recalcitrant tenants, the Member for the district immediately begins to agitate, naturally, to prevent these strong measures being put in force. The difficulties are enormous from that point of view.

It

648. In connection with these provincial estates, do I understand that the loss is about £800,000? On the Well Hall Estate?

649. No, Barrow, Coventry, and so on? -Yes, that is so. Of course, we had no responsibility at all in regard to the erection of those buildings.

650. Can any of the tenants buy the houses? They have done, in certain cases. We began selling houses, but it was very, very slow indeed. At Well Hall 53 houses were sold to individual tenants.

651. Can they buy under the Workmen's Dwellings Act, or anything of that sort? -We sold wherever we could to the tenants; we preferred to sell them to the tenants. Then we finally had these en bloc offers, and Mr. Jowett, who was then my Minister, went into this very carefully, when the Labour Government was in power. There were two offers made; one was from a speculative firm, and the other from a co-operative society; the cooperative society naturally had to pay as